Photo editing software recommendations

[Tintype_18]

On another thread, it was mentioned about editing photos. My T7 and File Explorer allow some editing but would like to expand the capabilities. Did the usual search and came up with a list from the XX Best Free Editing Software. GIMP was mentioned a few times as the recommended software. Anyone use this? Seemed simple to use and free. Thanks.

[ebiggs1]

"I used to participate in an online forum where any time a raw novice asked about an editing app, the immediate response from many was "PHOTOSHOP, NOTHING ELSE WILL DO!" Also, many also  claimed that you aren't a real photographer unless you use a full-frame camera."

I would either stop reading that "online forum" or stop reading that poster! However, there is no denying LR/PS are the top editors and the industry standard which all others are judged by. Some  folks either can't justify the price or for other reasons choose a different editor. DPP4 is simply one of these choices. There are even more free editors that are very good like Gimp and Darktable.

The FF statement is just too silly to comment on.

[grizzlu]

If you're still looking for recommendations, GIMP is indeed a popular choice for free and user-friendly editing software. It provides a wide range of editing tools and features that can help enhance your photos.
On the other hand, Canon offers its editing software called Digital Photo Professional (DPP), specifically designed for Canon cameras. It allows you to replicate the camera settings and provides a seamless editing experience.

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

This is an age old discussion now.  Everyone has their preference and workflow.  There are many great free editors available.  While Adobe Lr and Photoshop are widely regarded as industry standards, DxO Photo Lab is the application winning awards year over year.  None of them are perfect and each has its strengths.

If you are using Canon glass, DPP is hard to beat.  Its free and certainly works well with Canon's own hardware.  PS and Lr are great too, but you have to subscribe and the import process isn't as slick as some of the other solutions available.

I ended up going with DxO because I was using 3rd party glass with my DSLR and while I liked DPP, it fell short with images shot with my Sigma lenses.  DxO had the lens support I needed and a host of some very unique features not offered elsewhere.  I also do not care for a subscription and like owning the software.  

In truth Adobe's model isn't so bad.  Its a different kind of revenue stream.  Some months I use editing software 3-4 days a week.  Others I don't.  You can't pause the subscription, so I'm not so keen on that.  Pay as you go isn't practical for a vendor either.  Adobe has an immense amount of resources available for development.  The smaller guys don't, so its amazing that DxO continues to win awards with a footprint only a fraction of the size of Adobe.  

Now that I'm only using Canon glass, DPP is a great asset again, but now I'm hooked on DxO's additional features, Deep Prime noise reduction, etc.  Is it the end all, certainly not, but its nice to have at your disposal.  I find it refined, consistent and predictable.    

I imagine Adobe users feel similarly about PS and Lr.

[John_SD]

"GIMP was mentioned a few times as the recommended software. Anyone use this?"

I used GIMP briefly several years ago. I found it unwieldy and awkwardly documented. It is a bloated product that attempts to be all things to all people, which wasn't what I was interested in.  If you are interested in open source RAW processing, then I personally believe that Raw Therapee is the far superior choice. If DPP went away, I would be using Raw Therapee. 

[ebiggs1]

For years I resisted the Adobe rental program but when my Dell desktop crashed I could not get Adobe to accept my Photoshop and Lightroom license. Although I had multiple licensees.  I had them when I was in business. Adobe has always been difficult to deal with and that seems to have not changed. I was even a beta tester for Adobe for years.

They sure ain't Canon customer service or support!

Long story but any way I was forced to start the rental program and subscribed to PS/LR 2023. All I can say, it is worth it. I am happy I did. There have been several improvements which work and the updates install with out notice or additional cost. Its $9.99 plus tax. The general update to PS was usually $120 and it was generally each year. So if you did it, its 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. 

[ebiggs1]

"...  its amazing that DxO continues to win awards ..."

It certainly is. I am way too skeptical of any awards to put any stock in them since you can't trust the awarding committee. Who knows who and who pays who?

There is a reason why almost all and I might even say all professional photographers and photography shops use Photoshop and not any other.

[Tintype_18]

A vast majority of my photos are not subject to editing in any way. JPEG fits the bill for my everyday photos but RAW would be used when submitting for publishing by a magazine or newspaper.

[johnrmoyer]

---

@Tintype_18 wrote:

A vast majority of my photos are not subject to editing in any way. JPEG fits the bill for my everyday photos but RAW would be used when submitting for publishing by a magazine or newspaper.

---

I nearly always crop, adjust white balance, change "digital lens optimizer" setting in DPP.

I often increase dynamic range slightly in DPP if red channel or blue channel are clipped.

If I plan to edit in Gimp, I will save a 16 bit TIFF from either DPP or Rawtherapee. If using a non-Canon lens, I will prefer the "capture sharpening" in Rawtherapee because in DPP the "digital lens optimizer" will not be available.

[zakslm]

John,

I started shooting in RAW and using DPP about a year ago per the advice I received on this forum.  Prior to that, I took the JPEG's out of camera from by my T7 and if I wanted to edit them, used the native Photo Editor in Windows 10 (now  Windows 11) and felt it worked well for the amount of editing I needed to do like croping, brightness, color and other adjustments and it did a nice job doing what I wanted it to do.

When I started shooting in RAW and editing in DPP, it opened up a whole new dimension to the process of shooting and post processing.  I don't use most of the features and editing tools in DPP but I kind of have settled on a usual workflow.  I start with Digital Lens Optimization, then Cropping and then take advantage of Auto Gama Adjustment and tweak the sliders manually and maybe tweek some other things as well.  Then I save images I've edited as resized JPG's.  For me, its a lot of fun and I like the results.

DPP is the only RAW editor I've used and at present don't have a desire to try Lightroom or anyting else. In DPP, there are some Canon specific features like displaying the active focus point(s) in red that I find the shot "Info" is very useful.  

If you do choose to shoot in RAW and want to edit, I think it is worth your while to try DPP.

Regards,

LZ

[ebiggs1]

Very old thread!

"If you do choose to shoot in RAW and want to edit, I think it is worth your while to try DPP."

Absolutely. One big issue here is folks, even experienced veterans here on this forum, don't understand raw. First raw is simply the ones and zeros of a data file. It is not viewable as it. This fact and what confounds most people is because when they u/l to their computer they can see or view the image. However, the app that is used to make that happen takes the info from the camera settings to convert the raw file into that image. The big deal is it in no way affects the original raw file. The second point is raw contains all the data captured by the camera which operates at full resolution all the time. When the camera makes a jpg for viewing it discards data it deems not necessary. That is lost forever and is why there is very much more ability to edit a raw file. It has more data to work with.

Bottom line here just because you can see the image doesn't mean that info is saved inside the raw file as it is not. If you like the conversion made by your chosen app fine save it and be happy. But it is certainly not the end of the story.

If you are a person that never edits your photos jpg is fine more power to you. Raw is probably not going to help. But if you do like to edit your photos, today with al the new apps, there is no reason to not use raw. Some say well I need the photo fast to email to someone or to u/l to social media but this too has little advantage if you don't have that ability directly from the camera. You need to u/l to your computer anyway and the conversion is seamless. Yeah, I can see a possible situation where a jpg would be the best choice but it has a very limited place and doesn't affect most of us.